What’s wrong with The Principle?

concentric-shellsThe Principle is a documentary promoting geocentrism, or the idea that the earth is at the center of the universe.

In a previous post, I looked at how well it worked as a film. (I gave it * * 1/2 stars out of 5.)

What about the content of the film? How well does that stand up?

It depends on the level you are talking about.

At the highest level, the film contains a message that science and faith are not enemies and should not be pitted against each other.

Fine.

But that doesn’t mean that the earth is at the center of the universe, which is what the film wants to suggest.

The summaries that The Principle provides about the history of astronomy also are generally accurate, though I was amazed that the filmmakers let Michio Kaku get away with saying that Giordano Bruno was burned alive “for simply saying that there are other worlds out there.”

This is not true, and the filmmakers should have provided a voice setting the matter straight. Even Wikipedia’s page on Bruno is more accurate than The Principle is on him.

The film’s discussion of recent physics is also largely fine. Even some of the critiques it offers of modern scientific ideas are good (e.g., that we shouldn’t overplay the idea of a multiverse). But again, these don’t prove geocentrism, which is what the film is interested in advocating.

 

“What If . . . ?” Advocacy

We should note the way in which The Principle advocates geocentrism. It does not come out and say, in a straightforward way, with the full editorial voice of the film, “The earth is at the center of the universe.”

Instead, it uses the kind of breathless “What if . . . ?” style of advocacy that you find in documentaries inviting us to consider whether—just maybe—Jesus Christ might have been married to Mary Magdalene. Or whether—just perhaps—he never rose from the dead. Or even—just maybe perhaps—he was a space alien.

Despite framing their theses in the form of questions, the viewer understands which points of view they’re advocating.

Know what I mean?

Now: What arguments does the film offer concerning geocentrism?

 

Alternate Interpretations

A good bit of the film just tries to poke holes in current cosmological ideas by proposing alternate interpretations rather than making a positive case for geocentrism.

This happens when they note that you could explain the fact that almost all galaxies appear to be moving away from us either by proposing an expanding universe, in which almost all galaxies are moving away from each other, or by proposing that our galaxy is at the center of the universe and everything is moving away from us.

Fine. Either one of those works.

What the filmmakers don’t point out is that these aren’t the only two options. While you could pick our galaxy as the center and see everything moving away from it, you can equally well pick any random location in the universe and use it as a reference point.

If you did that, the same exact thing would result: Almost all the galaxies would seem to be moving away from that randomly chosen point.

Since there are an infinite number of random points you could choose, you need to give the viewer a reason to pick our galaxy—and, more specifically, our planet—if you want us to suppose that we are at the physical center of things.

 

A Baby’s Smile? The Finale of a Symphony?

It’s hard to know what to make of some of the things in The Principle. For example, there is an opening montage in which you have multiple figures talking about whether the earth is or is in a “special” place, with many of them denying that it is.

The earth very obviously is a special place (it has life, liquid water, breathable oxygen, and it’s where I keep all my stuff), so when the film talks about the earth being or being in a special place, it seems to be using the word special to mean something like “central” or “at the center.”

But then why is Kate Mulgrew telling us that the earth seems special because nowhere else in the universe do we see a baby’s smile or the finale of a great symphony being performed?

That’s not evidence that the earth is at the center of anything. Indeed, there could be babies smiling everywhere in the galaxy and symphonies finishing all over the universe and we wouldn’t know it because we don’t have telescopes powerful enough to see them. “Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.”

It’s hard to think that the filmmakers meant this to be taken seriously. Presumably, they put it in to give the viewers a warm fuzzy, without making a serious argument.

 

Concentric Shells?

The film seems to attempt only two serious arguments in favor of geocentrism. The first is based on the findings of physicist John Hartnett, who claimed to have discovered that there are regularities in the speeds that the galaxies appear to be moving away from us.

According to Hartnett, the galaxies seem to cluster around particular redshifts (i.e., particular speeds at which they are retreating). This can be visualized as a series of concentric shells (see illustration) with a center “somewhere cosmologically near our galaxy’s position,” in Hartnett’s words.

It should be noted that, although Hartnett himself thinks that our galaxy has a central location in the universe, he does not believe in geocentrism, and he believes that the producers of The Principle misrepresented his position in the film.

Further, Hartnett notes that even his galacto-centric interpretation of his data is not the only way of looking at it:

[T]he existence of concentric shells could be interpreted as some sort of oscillation in the expansion rate of the Universe. This view does not place any special significance on the centre of the large-scale structure being found exactly at the observer. This is because if cosmological redshift results from cosmological expansion then we only appear to be at some local centre.

Physicist Alec MacAndrew agrees. After noting that Hartnett’s data has been challenged and may not be accurate, he considers a proposal made by several scientists that the expansion rate of the universe changes over time in a way that makes the galaxies seem to cluster around particular speeds. He states:

In that case, observers will see preferential clustering of galaxies as a function of redshift, in concentric shells exactly centred on themselves from wherever in the universe they make the observation. Just like the recession of galaxies in a uniformly expanding universe always appears to be exactly centred on the observer, so universal oscillations in the expansion rate would leave a signature in the redshift data precisely centred on the observer, wherever he is [italics in original].

The argument based on the apparent speeds of the galaxies thus does not prove geocentrism (or even galacto-centrism).

 

The Cosmic Microwave Background

The other major argument that The Principle proposes for geocentrism is based on an analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)—a low-level radiation that fills the universe and that is commonly thought to be the “afterglow” of the Big Bang.

The argument that The Principle makes is difficult to summarize concisely and without computer animations, but it can be put this way: If you look at the sky, there are tiny temperature fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, and if you analyze these, you find features that seem to align with the plane of the solar system and the tilt of the earth’s axis. These seem to suggest that the earth is at the center of the universe.

Physicist Alec MacAndrew has written a technical takedown of the claim, which you can read here.

David Palm provides a somewhat less technical summary here. Here are a couple of takeaway points provided by Palm:

  • “Although you would never know it by reading geocentrist literature, the alignments which the new geocentrists highlight in the CMB are far from exact – they are only approximate.  It is true that any apparent alignments are interesting to physicists if they are expecting randomness.  But the inexactness of the alignments certainly does not create anything like a sound foundation upon which to build the extravagant claims of the geocentrists.  It is precarious, at best, to argue that the CMB data are actually ‘pointing to’ the earth when those alignments are off by 7, 14, even 16 degrees according to the most recent, most precise measurements.  The geocentrists are again playing fast and loose with the facts.  They demand we accept that God intentionally made the earth motionless at the exact center of the universe.  Yet, they’re content with supposed evidence that God is an extremely sloppy architect and cartographer who can’t manage to ‘point’ to the earth with a margin of error of less than 16 degrees.
  • “But it’s worse than that for the new geocentrists.  Because, as Dr. MacAndrew demonstrates, the CMB data don’t point at anything. As MacAndrew says, ‘the CMB multipole vectors give directional information but no positional information. If you were an astronomical distance away from the Earth, you would not be able to use the CMB multipole vectors to navigate to it.’  The claims of the new geocentrists that somehow the CMB ‘points at the Earth’ is completely fallacious.”

 

“Nothing Special”?

One of the most frustrating things about The Principle is a fallacy seemingly embraced by both the geocentrists and the non-geocentrists in the film.

Remember the opening montage I mentioned, where the question of whether the earth is or is in a “special” place kept being posed? Parties on both sides of the question seemed to be harboring the idea that if the earth isn’t in a special place then mankind is nothing special.

The geocentrists then seemed to suggest that since mankind is special, the earth must be or be in a “special” place. At one point, apologist Robert Sungenis says: “It’s tremendous to be human, so why wouldn’t we want to be in a special place in the universe, made by a special God?”

One of the problems with this argument is that what we want isn’t relevant. Another is the ambiguity of the word “special.”

The earth is a special place in ways that have already been noted: It has life, it has liquid water and breathable oxygen, etc.

The earth is also in a special place, because it’s in a location where those things are possible. If we were—say—at the distance from the sun that the planet Mercury is, that wouldn’t be the case.

Mankind is special because man has numerous qualities and abilities that are unique among all the living creatures on earth. From a theological point of view, man is also special because of his unique relationship with God.

But what does any of this have to do with being “special” in the sense of being at the center of the universe?

Nothing.

If God put the earth and mankind at the farthest point from the physical center of the universe (assuming the universe even has a physical center), none of the things that are special about them would change.

Just because something is special in one sense (having liquid water, having life, having intelligence) doesn’t mean that it is special in other senses (having liquid methane, having wings, being at the physical center of the universe).

This is simply fallacious reasoning.

As many have recognized.

But it’s the central—and fatal—fallacy of The Principle.

 

Mummy on the Orient Express

Doctor Who as an exorcist, redeemer and detective on the Orient Express? In this podcast episode we review and analyse episode 8 of season 8, entitled ‘Mummy on the Orient Express’ and highlight all the themes, inside jokes and easter eggs.

Join Jimmy Akin, Fr. Cory Sticha, Stephanie Zimmer, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis and speculation!

Click this link to listen or use the player on the web site.

Links for this episode:

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who, Stephanie’s podcast TV Rewind and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars! Subscribe to the Feed | Subscribe withiTunes

Kill the Moon (Secrets of Doctor Who)

kill the moonIn this episode we review and analyse episode 7 of season 8, entitled ‘Kill The Moon’.

Join Jimmy Akin, Fr. Cory Sticha, Stephanie Zimmer, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis and speculation!

Click this link to listen to the show or use the player on the web site.

Links for this episode:

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who, Stephanie’s podcast TV Rewind and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars! Subscribe to the Feed | Subscribe withiTunes

The Caretaker (Secrets of Doctor Who)

Doctor-Who-The-Caretaker (3)In this episode we review and analyse episode 6 of season 8, entitled ‘The Caretaker’.  Does Clara lead multiple lives? What is Missy’s relation to the Doctor? How will the relationship between the Doctor and Danny evolve?

Join Jimmy Akin, Fr. Cory Sticha, Stephanie Zimmer, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis, and speculation!

 Click here to listen to the link or use the player, below, on the web site.

Links for this episode:

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who, Stephanie’s podcast TV Rewind and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars!

Time Heist (Secrets of Doctor Who)

delphoxIn this episode we review and analyze episode 5 of season 8, entitled ‘Time Heist’.  Is life less valuable when we lose our memories? Plus, What do all the Greek references mean?

Join Jimmy Akin, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis and speculation!

Links for this episode:

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars!

Subscribe to the Feed | Subscribe with iTunes

Download the mp3 of the episode.

Listen (Secrets of Doctor Who)

doctorwho-listenIn this episode we review and analyse episode 4 of season 8, entitled ‘Listen’.  The overarching theme in this episode was overcoming fear. We also get some rare glimpses of the Doctor’s past! Join Jimmy Akin, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis and informed speculation!

Links for this episode:

Check out Stephanie Zimmer’s podcast TV Rewind, Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars!

Subscribe to the Feed | Subscribe with iTunes

Robot of Sherwood (Secrets of Doctor Who)

In this episode we review and analyse episode 3 of season 8, entitled ‘Robot of Sherwood’. The Doctor and Clara travel to 1190 to meet Robin Hood. Why is the Doctor so cynical? What are the robots up to? And why are the references to the ‘Promised Land’ so disturbing to the Doctor?

Join Jimmy Akin, Fr. Cory Sticha, Dom Bettinelli and Fr. Roderick for discussion, analysis and informed speculation!

Links for this episode:

Check out Stephanie Zimmer’s podcast TV Rewind, Jimmy Akin’s blog Let’s Watch Doctor Who and Dom Bettinelli & Fr. Roderick’s podcast Secrets of Star Wars!

Subscribe to the Feed | Subscribe with iTunes

The Five(ish) Doctors

The_Five(ish)_Doctors_RebootJust a note about the recent, 50th anniversary Doctor Who special, The Day of the Doctor.

I’m glad they didn’t try to put all of the living Doctors in it.

Even with ensemble casts, there is a maximum number of main characters that a story can sustain and still be emotionally moving.

One that number, which varies from story to story, is exceeded, the addition of new main characters begins to detract, as the sheer task of finding things for all of them to do takes over and the core of the story is muddied–or lost.

The program–er, programme?–Doctor Who has passed the maximum number of main characters more than once.

For example, in the two-part David Tenant spectacular The Stolen Earth/Journey’s End (y’know, the one where the earth gets stolen and the journey ends–also the one where the metacrisis regeneration happens), they tried to do a story which had the Tenth Doctor and all of his previous companions and their families.

Some where reduced to contributing basically nothing to the story. Martha Jones, for example, ends up running around talking dramatically about something called “the Osterhagen Key”–an ominous device that they never actually use (thus violating Chekhov’s rule that if you show a gun on the mantlepiece in Acts I of a play, it must be used by Act III).

Martha is plot superfluous. If you delete Martha from the story entirely, it would have wound up exactly the same way. (Though the same thing has been said of Indiana Jones.)

Even worse was the show’s 20th anniversary special, The Five Doctors, which tried to give major parts to all five incarnations of the Doctor to have appeared by then–as well as some of their companions.

It didn’t work.

The plot was a mess, and in large part because of the excessive number of main characters.

Steven Moffat wisely shunned this approach in The Day of the Doctor. Instead of trying to give major screen time to all eleven of the Doctors, he wanted to focus just on those since the new series began–plus one more. That would have made for main characters, plus several supporting ones.

Eminently doable.

Then, to pay homage to all the Doctor’s incarnations, he gave a brief moment of screen time to each of them via previously-recorded footage and images.

Unfortunately, spoilsport Christopher Eccleston (the 9th Doctor) wasn’t game to play one of the core Doctors of the story, but the show went on without him.

Not having pre-2005 Doctors as principal actors apparently didn’t sit well with some of them. Colin Baker (the 6th Doctor), in particular, has made some peevish remarks on not being included.

But I didn’t mind that.

Apart from the maximum-number-of-principal-characters problem, some of the previous Doctors are dead. That can be solved by recasting their parts, though (as happened in The Five Doctors, since William Hartnell was already dead).

Then there is the fact that some of the actors who played previous Doctors have aged so much that they could not play their younger selves. This being a mushy-science science fiction show, you could get around that by explaining that they all passed through some kind of field as they were pulled together, causing them to age, and that will reverse itself when they go back to their own spots in the Doctor’s timeline. (It is an unsatisfying explanation, but it could be done.)

But the fundamental problem remains: Too many principal characters will ruin the story, and there is no way to have eleven main characters would be a nightmare.

So that’s my thought about that. Now: Here’s an awesome 30-minute video by Peter Davison (the 5th Doctor), about the actors’ attempt to get into the 50th anniversary special.

Hilarious. Drags a bit in parts, but has some jaw-dropping moments.

If you need a key to decode everything going on in the video, THIS GUIDE SHOULD BE HELPFUL.

My Ender’s Game Movie Review

enders-game-movie-ender-harrison-fordLong time blog readers know that I’m a fan of the Ender’s Game series of books by Orson Scott Card.

Well, many of them. Some of the later books following Ender become unbearably tedious, but the original is very good, and the books following Ender’s buddy Bean are good as well.

The two best books in the series are the original novel, Ender’s Game, and its parallel novel, Ender’s Shadow, which follows the events of the original novel from Bean’s perspective.

According to what Card said a few years ago, the movie was going to be a fusion of these two books, so I’ve been really looking forward it.

Now it’s out, and I’ve seen it.

I have a good bit to say about it, so I’m going to structure this review in a way that won’t bore people who are new to Ender’s Game and that won’t spoil people who don’t want to be spoiled on what happens.

Here goes . . .

 

If You Are New to Ender’s Game

Here’s the basic premise: It is set in the future, and mankind has been invaded by an insect-like alien race.

We beat them back, but only barely, and now we’re preparing for a rematch. If humanity has a hope of survival, we need to find a genius strategist on the order of Alexander the Great.

To find that genius, the world government is testing children to find those with military potential and train them.

They hope that they’ve found the child they are looking for in a young man named Andrew “Ender” Wiggin.

If that’s all you know about the movie, if you’ve never read the book, then I think you’ll find it an enjoyable science fiction outing.

It will be fun—assuming you like science fiction in the first place.

I don’t think, though, that you’ll rave about the movie the way long-time fans rave about the book.

As often happens, the movie isn’t as great as the book, but that’s normal.

 

If You Are a Long Time Fan

Many fans will enjoy watching it. I did. But I didn’t think it was anything special, for reasons I will explain.

Other fans will hate it, and that’s understandable. That’s the case with any adaptation.

No movie can capture every aspect of what a fan likes about the book, and depending on which elements you are most fond of, your experience of the movie will vary.

If you are a long time fan of the book, the movie is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, you get to see things you read about in the book visualized on screen.

That’s good. That is, after all, why a fan of the book would want to go see the movie in the first place.

Sure, things may not be exactly the way you imagined them, but if you’re going to obsess about that kind of thing, then you’d better stay home. (I’m thinking of you, Sheldon Cooper.)

In terms of how the film visualizes the book, it does a good job. I was happy with it.

On the other hand, I think that the movie doesn’t have the emotional “oomph” of the book.

Not even close.

It felt rushed, the danger wasn’t set up fully, and—most importantly—Ender himself doesn’t come across the way he does in the book.

To explain why, I’ll need to introduce some minor spoilers.

Proceed beyond this point only if you don’t mind that.

 

Minor Spoilers Ahoy!

At the end of the audiobook adaptations of the Ender’s Game books, Orson Scott Card has some afterwords in which he discusses the prospects for a movie, which was then years in the future.

Early on, he wrote some drafts of a screenplay for the movie himself, and he quickly identified a problem with them.

If his test reader knew the book, they thought the screenplay was fine, but if they hadn’t read the book, they didn’t find it emotionally satisfying.

The problem, he discovered, was that the book relied too heavily on Ender’s introspection. Card writes heavily introspective novels, but we can’t get inside Ender’s head in a movie the way we can in a book, and so the intense emotions Ender was feeling weren’t coming across through the screenplay.

The solution to this problem came, he said, when he was told he should fuse Ender’s Game with Ender’s Shadow, so we could feel Ender’s emotions through Bean.

Card said he realized this was exactly what was needed, and so he wrote a draft that way and it was vastly better. The Ender-Bean relationship became the crux of the movie and it turned into a sort of buddy picture, where Ender could be drawn out of himself and show his emotions to Bean.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, Card explained, Hollywood would never trust a never-before-screenwriter like him with the screenplay, and so he expected that someone else would do the filmed version.

They did, and they should have used Card’s solution to the problem.

Unfortunately, they didn’t.

 

How Faithful to the Original Is Too Faithful to the Original?

I was amazed at how faithful the movie was to the original. I expected much bigger changes than they ended up doing.

Some changes were merely cosmetic. Major Anderson is now an African American woman? Big deal. Dink Meeker is no longer Dutch but, apparently also African American? So what.

Bean is on Ender’s launch shuttle? Fine.

Armies are now sixteen people instead of forty-one? That’s probably a good thing. Having eighty-two people in the Battle Room to follow would have been too confusing.

Ender is no longer the shortest, youngest kid (other than Bean) in Battle School? Bonzo Madrid is shorter than Ender? We’re starting to lose part of the dynamic of the book, but neither of these makes a crucial difference.

What I was amazed by, though, was the tiny things from the book that they preserved. The opening sequence of the movie plays out very much the same way that the opening of the book does.

It’s abbreviated, but we’ve got the monitor, the fight with Stilson, the scene at home with Valentine and Peter, Peter making Ender play buggers and astronauts with him, the parents’ reactions to Ender being taken away by Graff, etc.

Even lots of the dialogue is lifted from the book.

In my amazement at their including all this, I found myself thinking, “What are you going to cut? You can’t be this faithful to the book the whole way through. You don’t have enough time in a two-hour movie. If you keep all this stuff, something has to be cut.”

One of the things that went right out the window was any hope of doing an Ender’s Game/Ender’s Shadow fusion.

There simply was no time to do the kind of Ender/Bean relationship that Card envisioned, and—I hate to say it—Bean is barely in this movie!

That means we’re staring the problem that Card identified early on right in the face: The movie cannot capture the power of the book because Ender has no way of showing us his emotions without the relationship with Bean.

The emotional depth and texture of the book’s version of Ender is simply gone.

What’s worse, so is his brilliance.

 

Informed Attributes

Don’t get me wrong. The movie still hinges on Ender being the greatest commander since Alexander the Great, and we have characters in the movie telling us this.

They also tell us Ender is a freaky good strategist and leader. Han SoloCol. Graff tells us Ender is “perfect” over and over, but that’s the problem: We’re being told, not being shown.

This is a significant problem, which is sometimes called informed attributes.

Merely telling the viewer that someone is super-awesome is not enough. We have to be shown that they have this attribute, not merely informed of it, in order for it to feel emotionally real.

And that’s not what happens in this movie.

Ender is still playing vulnerable kid up until the point he becomes commander of Dragon Army. We don’t see almost any of his brilliance (though we do get a flash of it in the climactic Battle Room game).

We also only get a faint glimmer of the other students warming up to him—and then for very little reason. We are not shown how he builds their trust and earns their loyalty over time.

They make gestures at this, but they’ve spent so much time on other things that they basically rush through this part of the novel, and that’s bad, because it’s the necessary emotional set-up for the climax.

We have to believe that Ender is a genius, that he’s a born leader, and that he’s emotionally anguished for the ending to have the needed payoff.

And we don’t get that.

What I need to say next depends on major spoilers, so bail now if you don’t want to be majorly spoiled. You can come back and read it after you’ve seen the movie . . .

 

Major Spoilers Ahead!

One of the things that takes the punch out of the movie is the way it tones down certain events.

For example, there’s the bit in the book where Ender sends the desk message from “God.” There’s a version of that in the movie, but the messages that are sent are different, and Ender’s isn’t signed “God,” which deprives the officer present of the ability to do the clever smackdown that happens in the book.

The core idea of the scene is there, but it’s so toned down that it’s nearly pointless.

Far worse is what happens with the two fights Ender gets in—with Stilson and with Bonzo.

These are crucial points of character development, since they reveal just how committed to winning Ender is. In the book he kills both of these characters.

But at the same time, these scenes establish Ender’s vulnerability: Although he kills these characters, he doesn’t know that this is what he has done and could not bear it emotionally if he knew, consciously, that he had done so.

That’s the central character point of the book.

Ender unknowingly killing Stilson and Bonzo is what sets us up for the climax of the story, when Ender unknowingly kills all of the buggers.

But the edge is taken completely off of that in the movie, because neither Stilson nor Bonzo is established to be dead!

Indeed, we see an autodoc working on Bonzo—still alive—after the fight, and Ender later states he’s been spending time by Bonzo’s bed on earth, hoping he will wake up.

What???

I guess that they took the edge off these things because they thought it would be too dark if Ender actually killed other children, but this just sucks the drama—the fact that Ender is able to unknowingly kill people—right out of the situation.

They also take the edge off of other things, some much more minor. For example, the buggers are never referred to as buggers in the movie, just “formics.”

This is just misguided P.C.-ness. I’m sorry, but when insect-like aliens have killed millions of humans, it’s okay to call them “buggers.” In fact, that’s what we’d do.

 

Fan Confusion

The P.C.-ness of calling the buggers only “formics,” is only a tiny example of things in the movie that will confuse long time fans.

There are much bigger ones.

For example, there is significant ambiguity in the film about who the good guys are. At a certain point in the film, we start getting indications that the buggers aren’t hostile now.

We’ve actually got them “surrounded” in their home system, but Graff is determined to have Ender proceed to “train” to kill them all.

Ender doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with this, but the long time fan is going to be going, “Wait a minute! This is just making us look like the bad guys! None of this was in the book! Yes, we were invading their space, but we didn’t—already—have them ‘surrounded’.”

There are actually two moments in the movie where I was thoroughly confused: One was when Ender, instead of being taken to Command School on Eros, is taken to a planet near the buggers’ home world!

So much for faster-than-light-travel and communication not being possible!

At this point I thought they were going to completely re-write the final act of the movie, but they didn’t.

Now it’s just that Command School is on a planet near the buggers’ home, and the story proceeds more or less as you’d expect.

But for a long time fan, this is a deeply confusing moment, as the lightspeed barrier and the secret existence of the ansible were major factors in the books.

They were, in fact, the key things preventing Ender from realizing that he was really commanding a fleet.

In the movie, we’re thus put in a position in which FTL travel and communication are possible and we’re on a planet just outside the bugger solar system (only one), running “simulations” of an invasion of that system, with the expectation not that Ender might some day command a fleet but that he will start commanding an invasion fleet right after passing his “graduation test.”

Then there’s a moment in the final “simulation” where they fire Dr. Device and, for the sake of a cool special effect (apparently blowing up a bunch of rocks around the planet that aren’t in the book), it looks like they just destroyed the bugger home world.

At this point, I found myself saying, “What? That’s it? They end the battle before it’s even begun?”

But then it becomes clear that it was just a special effect and the planet is still there and needs to be destroyed.

 

The Wrong Notes

The film continues to hit the wrong emotional notes in this act.

Unlike the book, Ender does not go into the final battle at his wits’ end. He doesn’t give up at the unfairness of it all. He isn’t rescued from cluelessness at the last moment by Bean’s remark that the enemy’s gate is down.

He’s positive going into the fight, and at the end of the simulation, he and the other members of his jeesh are jubilant.

And suddenly the adults watching are somber. They aren’t weeping and praying with joy, as they are in the book. They just stand there, showing little emotion.

Then they show the children an ansible connection revealing the devastation of the bugger homeworld (which hasn’t actually blown up, just become uninhabitable).

Not. Exactly. The. Best. Way. To. Tell. Children. They. Are. Xenocides.

Only then does Col. Graff come up to Ender jubilantly telling him he’s a hero—after this weird silence of the adults.

And Ender immediately leaps to the fact that he’s going to go down in history as a xenocide.

We don’t get anything about joyful masses on earth realizing they are finally free of the bugger threat.

Instead, Ender has a fight with Graff, stalks off, and is then drugged and put to bed for no apparent reason.

 

The Postlude

The final part of the movie does result in Ender getting the hive queen’s egg, and it does so in a way that I thought was okay.

It’s not the same as in the book, but it’s similar, and I was able to accept it.

I was disappointed, though, that Val doesn’t end up going into space with Ender at the end.

He goes alone, promising to come back to her (apparently possible due to FTL space flight).

If there are future movies in this series, it is hard to see how they will resemble the later volumes Card wrote. They may take elements from them, but they could not be as faithful to them as this movie was to its original.

It’s also hard to see how they could make books like those of the Bean arc, since Bean has not been established as a significant character in this movie.

So it may be just a one-off, and not a brilliant one.

 

What Should Have Happened

If they were going to try to be as faithful as they were to the original book then they should have done to this what they did to Lord of the Rings.

The audiobook version of Ender’s Game is 12 hours long, and they should have made three multi-hour films out of this.

That would give them the space they need to flesh out Ender’s character and emotional situation, and show us his brilliance and leadership rather than just telling us he had them.

If they didn’t have funding for a multi-movie project then they should have lengthened this one to two and a half hours and been less faithful to the book, cutting out everything not necessary.

Val and Peter should have gone, for instance. When space is short, they aren’t necessary. They were not, for example, in the original Ender’s Game short story.

In either case, they should have used the solution of making the movie almost as much about Bean as about Ender.

The dynamic between the two would be the best way of pulling Ender out of himself and letting the audience experience the emotions of the two characters.

Unfortunately, they wasted these opportunities.

 

My Summing Up

I’m glad that I saw Ender’s Game—once. That may well be all I see it.

I enjoyed seeing a visualization of a favorite story of mine, one that I have read many times.

However, I felt it was a profoundly flawed adaptation, because it was faithful when it shouldn’t have been and also unfaithful when it shouldn’t have been.

In a way, I feel about this the way I feel about J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek movies: They have enjoyable aspects, but they aren’t really Star Trek. They’re action movies with Star Trek trappings.

This isn’t quite as remove from the original book as they are, but it’s similar.

The situations may be much more like what we have in the book, but the main character is not the same person—not by a long shot.

He’s a different character in Ender trappings.

 

1st Thoughts on the 12th Doctor

capaldi
Peter Capaldi has been cast as the 12th Doctor Who

So it has now been announced that Peter Capaldi will be the new Doctor Who.

I must confess that I don’t know much about Capaldi, but I do have a couple of initial thoughts.

 

The Right Man for the Part?

The first is that I’m glad they cast a man instead of a woman for the part.

The latter, while not out of keeping with what they’ve established about timelord biology, would have been a net negative for the show.

Changing the sex of your main character is not something to be done lightly.

In this case, doing so would have:

  • felt like artificial “stunt casting” done out of slavish political correctness,
  • invited endless discussions of sex that would have overshadowed what the program is about,
  • invite endless and unflattering comparisons to the performances of previous Doctors, and
  • made the show feel unfamiliar and different on a bunch of levels.

The time to something like that, if you’re going to do something like that, is not when a show is at the peak of its popularity–which this one is. It has never had a bigger audience, globally.

The time to do radical shakeups in a show’s formula is when it’s about to get cancelled or when it’s just being revived after a hiatus.

 

Regressing to the Mean

My second thought is that I’m glad that they went with an older actor to play the Doctor.

I’d been (mildly) concerned about the increasing youth of the actors who have been cast for the part. The current, 11th Doctor (Matt Smith), was the youngest ever.

While I don’t mind young actors in the part (I liked Smith, as well as Peter Davison, who was only 30 when he was cast as the 5th Doctor), there was a clear trend toward younger actors, and the show was in danger of becoming too young-actor oriented.

We were nearing a point at which the apparent age of the Doctor needed to regress to the mean.

I mean, could an 18-year old Doctor even try to bring the gravitas needed for the part without looking foolish (as well as teenage angst-y)?

Just for fun, I did a quick table of the ages of the various actors who have played the Doctor at the time they got the part:

doctor who ages 1

This chart covers the twelve actors who have been cast to play the role on television on an ongoing basis (even though McGann’s incarnation didn’t get picked up for a regular series).

It does not include actors cast for movies, webisodes, or on a purely temporary basis (such as John Hurt, who is playing the “mystery incarnation” of the Doctor, whose story will be explored in the 50th anniversary special).

Now here’s a chart showing what I mean about the Doctor-getting-younger trend:

doctor who ages 2

As you can see, until Capaldi’s casting as the 12th Doctor, there was an unmistakable trend toward casting younger actors.

Of course, there were ups and downs, but the overall trend toward younger doctors is unmistakable.

We needed to regress to the mean, and they did that in a big way by casting a 55-year old (that also being the age that the 1st Doctor was when the series began).

In a way, the series is returning to its roots, with the Doctor as a man of mature years rather than a twenty-something romping around space and time.

 

Getting Darker?

My third thought concerns the way that Capaldi will play the role and what kinds of stories he will be offered.

I’d have a better sense of this if I knew more about his work, but I suspect that we’ll see a couple of things that will be different than Matt Smith’s Doctor and other recent Doctors.

For one, I suspect that he will play the part more seriously–and be given fewer zany antics (though there will be some of those).

Matt Smith apparently patterned aspects of his performance off Patrick Troughton’s 2nd Doctor (who is, perhaps, my all-time favorite Doctor), and I’ve seen some online suggesting that Capaldi may come across more like Jon Pertwee’s less-playful, more action-oriented 3rd Doctor.

So this transition may feel a bit like the transition from Troughton to Pertwee, which would be fine by me.

I also suspect that the performance and the show will be getting darker because we’re apparently at the Doctor’s (allegedly) final incarnation.

Timelords can only regenerate 12 times under normal circumstances, meaning 13 incarnations total.

Assuming John Hurt’s Doctor is a previous incarnation (either pre-Hartnell or during the gap between McGann and Eccleston, when the Time War occurred) then Capaldi is the timelord’s 13th incarnation (even though he’s only the 12th “Doctor”).

That means that when it comes time to replace Capaldi there will likely be a big, pathos-filled story in which he is miraculously freed from the 12-regeneration limit.

They’ve already indicated that this can be done, as the timelords offered the Master a whole new cycle of regenerations (another 12) back in the 25th anniversary special. And, even without their help, the Master managed to get several more regenerations, leading to his appearances in the current revival of the program.

They’ll do the same for the Doctor–somehow–but they will probably (and should) milk the approaching, apparent end of his life for the drama it naturally contains.

That means that the 12th Doctor’s time should have the Shadow of Death hanging over it.

It also may have the shadow of the Valeyard hanging over it, if they don’t pay that off in the 50th anniversary special.

And, as much as I’ve enjoyed some of the zaniness Matt Smith brought to the role, some aspects of the 11th Doctor’s run were over the top (particularly Steven Moffat’s fairy tale-inspired series finales).

I’ve already been enjoying the more serious feel of the show that arrived with Clara Oswald becoming the main companion, which harks back to the way the show felt in its–uh–first incarnation (1963-1989), and the arrival of Peter Capaldi as the Doctor may bring back more of that classic Who feeling.